ArticleFrontiers in physiology2019
Quantitative Comparison of the Performance of Piezoresistive, Piezoelectric, Acceleration, and Optical Pulse Wave Sensors.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring multi-site pulse transit time with an AI-enabled mmWave radar.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Motion Artifacts Removal from Measured Arterial Pulse Signals at Rest: A Generalized SDOF-Model-Based Time-Frequency Method.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Analytical Model of Motion Artifacts in a Measured Arterial Pulse Signal-Part I: Accelerometers and PPG Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Analytical Model of Motion Artifacts in a Measured Arterial Pulse Signal-Part II: Tactile Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Motion Artifacts (MA) At-Rest in Measured Arterial Pulse Signals: Time-Varying Amplitude in Each Harmonic and Non-Flat Harmonic-MA-Coupled Baseline.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Highly Sensitive Pressure Transducer for Measuring Arterial Pulse Wave Velocity Based on Giant Magneto-Impedance Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quantitative comparison of the performance of acoustic, optical and pressure sensors for pulse wave analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Contact pressure-guided wearable dual-channel bioimpedance device for continuous hemodynamic monitoring.Advanced materials technologies · 2024Article
- Intraoperative Beat-to-Beat Pulse Transit Time (PTT) Monitoring via Non-Invasive Piezoelectric/Piezocapacitive Peripheral Sensors Can Predict Changes in Invasively Acquired Blood Pressure in High-Risk Surgical Patients.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Multimodal Finger Pulse Wave Sensing: Comparison of Forcecardiography and Photoplethysmography Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Bite Force Transducers and Measurement Devices.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- The Human Dive Reflex During Consecutive Apnoeas in Dry and Immersive Environments: Magnitude and Synchronicity.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accurate measurement of the arterial pulse wave is beneficial to clinical health assessment and is important for the effective diagnosis of many types of cardiovascular disease. A variety of sensors have been developed for the non-invasive detection of these waves, but the type of sensor has an impact on the measurement results. Therefore, it is necessary to compare and analyze the signals obtained under a range of conditions using various pulse sensors to aid in making an informed choice of the appropriate type. From the available types we have selected four: a piezoresistive strain gauge sensor (PESG) and a piezoelectric Millar tonometer (the former with the ability to measure contact force), a circular film acceleration sensor, and an optical reflection sensor. Pulse wave signals were recorded from the left radial, carotid, femoral, and digital arteries of 60 subjects using these four sensors. Their performance was evaluated by analyzing their susceptibilities to external factors (contact force, measuring site, and ambient light intensity) and by comparing their stability and reproducibility. Under medium contact force, the peak-to-peak amplitude of the signals was higher than that at high and low force levels and the variability of signal waveform was small. The optical sensor was susceptible to ambient light. Analysis of the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the pulse wave parameters showed that the tonometer and accelerometer had good stability (ICC > 0.80), and the PESG and optical sensor had moderate stability (0.46 < ICC < 0.86). Intra-observer analysis showed that the tonometer and accelerometer had good reproducibility (ICC > 0.75) and the PESG and optical sensor had moderate reproducibility (0.42 < ICC < 0.91). Inter-observer analysis demonstrated that the accelerometer had good reproducibility (ICC > 0.85) and the three other sensors had moderate reproducibility (0.52 < ICC < 0.96). We conclude that the type of sensor and measurement site affect pulse wave characteristics and the careful selection of appropriate sensor and measurement site are required according to the research and clinical need. Moreover, the influence of external factors such as contact pressure and ambient light should be fully taken into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.